This is a funny argument against nuclear. Some nuclear reactor have to shut down for a few days to avoid heating the rivers is a big problem. But the solar panel being down more than half the time (night or clouds) and the wind turbine also being down depending on the wind in uncontrollable ways is Ok.
Shutting down and restarting nuclear plants is super expensive and that actually adds to their cost problem. Predictable intermittencies of solar and wind are a given and mainly a challenge for other energy sources on the grid. For example, a lot of gas plants originally intended for base load are now pushed into the role of peaker plants. When there is cheap solar and wind power available, it's cheaper to shut down gas production. Of course that vastly reduces overall profitability of these gas plants. Any time they don't produce, they still cost money. Nuclear peaker plants are not a thing. It's just not practical.
At the moment half of France's nuclear plants are down for months and France is relying on imports. But this no the argument against nuclear. The argument against nuclear is that it simply is far too expensive.
How many wind turbines have to be down to have the same effect as one nuclear power plant being down?
Not to mention that some people think Putin could attack other countries after Ukraine.
That's not the time you want nuclear power plants as possible target.
How long did it take to repair the damage in Berlin after WW2, for how many years has Chernobyl power plant been a problem? And how many years will it remain so?
In any case, I have not heard of any fears that Russian missiles could damage Ukrainian wind or solar power plants.
